BOSTON - An inmate convicted of helping beat a man to death outside a Rockland sandwich shop in the 1990s must obtain a single justice’s approval before filing any new appeals in his case, according to a ruling issued Tuesday by the Supreme Judicial Court.

Steven James had argued that he wasn’t subject to a so-called “gatekeeper provision” related to post-conviction appeals in capital cases because his sentence was reduced several years ago, which he said meant his case was no longer “capital.” The state’s highest court ruled Tuesday that the sentence didn’t matter because James’s case had already had been exhaustively reviewed by the court, making it appropriate for a single justice to review any appeals to make sure they present “new and substantial” issues.

James and four other people were convicted in connection with the 1994 beating death of 22-year-old Edward Sullivan in what prosecutors described as a case of "wilding." They said the group had been driving around Rockland and nearby towns looking for someone to beat up before targeting Sullivan, who was hit repeatedly in the skull with a baseball bat.

James, who as 17, at the time of the murder, was convicted in 1995 of first-degree murder in Sullivan’s death and received an automatic sentence of life in prison without the opportunity to seek parole. But in 2015, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that sentencing defendants who commit first-degree murder as juveniles to life in prison without giving them a chance to seek parole as they get older amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment," which is prohibited under the U.S. Constitution. Under the ruling, James and other inmates convicted of first-degree murder as adults have been given a chance to convince the state Parole Board that they’re ready to be released.

At issue in the decision issued Tuesday is a state statute that requires all capital cases – meaning life sentences without parole, the most severe sentence recognized in Massachusetts – receive a full review by the Supreme Judicial Court that can include issues never raised by the defendant during or after trial. Because of the thoroughness of the review, the statute says that once it is completed capital defendants may only file new appeals that raise "new and substantial" issues, as determined by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court.

The court ruled Tuesday that the provision still applies to James, who is seeking to appeal the denial of a motion seeking a new trial.